1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer>

The lessons of losing

Print E-mail

rugbyIQ.com's Gary Gold looks back at South Africa's recent trip to Australasia and how the Springboks can return to winning ways in the remainder of the 2010 Tri-Nations. 

After 24 hours of flying we returned home to SA shores to an understandably frosty reception earlier this week.

 

To say that the tour was not a success would be the understatement of the year. And while many of you rugby supporters are understandably annoyed and irritated with the team's performances, it is our responsibility - and job - to not get caught up in a wave of emotion but, rather, objectively and systematically go about fixing the problem. Something which Peter de Villiers, as the head coach, is very good at doing. 

 

I am going to stay away from quoting all the many clichés pertaining to how much one learns in defeat and from failure. However, at the same time, it is important to mention that they are clichés because they are, indeed, true.

 

I believe that the cardinal rule about learning from our losses is that we need to focus our time and attention on the issues that we can control - in so doing we need to be honest and harsh about the things that we have done wrong; as an entire group. That said, I truly believe whilst there certainly were other external factors that aided our poor performances, spending time moaning and deliberating over these issues is counter-productive and takes our focus away from fixing the areas of our game that we can control. 

 

An exercise like this is an interesting one, and one that can be derailed if we are to read, or believe, the many opinions from the media and over-zealous supporters at present - as it might focus too much attention on those specific areas we cannot have a direct control over.

 

For example, it is the popular view that we kicked too much in our three matches in Australasia... In fact, upon reflection of the match statistics against New Zealand (in both matches) they actually kicked more ball out of hand than we did. However, what is unquestionable is that their kicks - in their intentions and execution - were all superior to those of ours. Their kicks were on target more often and their chase was aggressive and accurate; in fact, their entire kicking strategy put us under similar pressure to what we did to them last year. 

 

You see, friends, what is really important is that we get to the bottom of whether our intended strategy and plan is wrong, as is widely report, or simply our execution. I believe the latter. Our kicks were generally inaccurate, we chased and aligned poorly and then failed on far too many occasions to make the first-time tackle intended to pin them deep in their own 22 - which, of course, exerts pressure and hopefully leads to turnovers. That is why I firmly believe, and clearly like NZ do, that the strategy is good - but on this tour our execution was far below our acceptable standard.

 

Another common view reported is that as a team we have not advanced with the game to the same level that Australia and New Zealand have. Again, there is an interesting irony of a theory that I would like to share with you.

 

At last November's SANZAR conference; the Super 14 teams from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were told in no uncertain terms that four areas of the game (something which we have spoken about in previous blogs) were going to be heavily policed and teams not adhering to the refreshed interpretations of these four areas would be heavily penalised and thus be left behind. (The area that was most significantly going to be managed, would be the breakdown - with particular attention to the defending team allowing the attacking team to generate quick ball.) 

 

There is no doubt that South Africa's Super 14 teams - through some astute coaching - adapted magnificently; an example of that is the team that conceded the most penalties in the 2010 Super 14 were the Crusaders, followed by the Hurricanes. In all, the Crusaders conceded 90 penalties; of those 75 penalties were conceded whilst on defence - mainly against effecting opposition from gaining quick ball.

 

As we know, the Super 14 culminated in two SA sides meeting in the final and I am sure none of our Antipodean teams would disagree that they were the two best teams throughout the competition. 

 

How then, can it be possible that a few weeks later a Springbok team - made up largely of these same players - are now being accused of not 'keeping up' with how the game has advanced?

 

And, here lies the irony... 

 

SANZAR instructed and initiated the new law interpretations and used 17 referees - from Australia, NZ and SA only - in 99 Super Rugby matches this season. Yet, to date, not one of those 17 referees have featured in the Tri-Nations (until this weekend - with our very own Craig Joubert in charge in Melbourne).

 

And, so, perhaps, a fairer accusation against us is not so much that we have not been able to adapt to how the game moves forward, but rather we should have adapted to the fact that the game would be going 'backwards' - and by 'backwards' I mean not according to the new interpretations. That - for me - is something we will need to address if I am, at all, correct in my observation. 

 

Much has also been spoken about the deterioration of our defence and here we stand defenceless - literally - after conceding ten tries in three matches. In last year's Tri-Nations, we conceded just 11 in the entire competition (in six matches). This is an area we will be giving massive attention to in the coming weeks as we build up to our next game in Soweto.

 

The team has always prided itself in its strong defence and in the past that strong defence has given us a favourable reward by being able to turn over opposition ball. I am confident that we can rectify it.

 

Whilst our performances have not been up to scratch in recent weeks, I simply cannot wait to get back into camp and, along with the rest of the group, work towards ending the Tri-Nations on a high.

 

We are a tight squad under Pete's leadership and nobody will shirk the hard work as we look to rectify our performances. Everybody in the Bok squad is very passionate about what they do, and how they do it, and there is a great camaraderie between everyone - all of whom have one goal; Bok victories. 

 

Thanks for your support - until next week friends,

Gary Gold | rugbyIQ.com coach // read more posts by Gary

 

Comments 

 
+3 # RE: The lessons of losingcymru08 2010-07-30 11:35
Always great to read your perspective. Thanks for sharing, Gary.

I read that the Johannesburg game it sold out in the new stadium in Soweto - so clearly people are behind the team.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingTimGoodenough 2010-07-30 12:02
Well written and great point about "not keeping up with how the game has advanced" I got that wrong.

All the best and good luck, you have my 100% unconditional belief and support regardless of the score or the results - wheter future or past. I will back character over form anyday.
 
 
+1 # breakdownjords 2010-07-30 13:25
the breakdown is crucially important and needs to be policed consistently as it is and always has been a bit of a gray area.

MacCaw and Pocock racked up a number of ball killing penalties in crucial attacking positions for the Boks and that is where the frustration comes in.

Heavy policing means when a team is guilty of repeat offenses penalties aren't enough.

If that is not enforced teams will always kill the ball for a possible 3 pointer instead of taking the try - which in my mind is counter the reason the laws were adjusted in the first place.

To allow the attacking team more opportunities, which would change the game and create more and exciting rugby for spectators.
 
 
0 # Over-reactingGerald 2010-07-30 16:15
As a proud Bok fan, I could not give two hoots about us losing these three Tests. All that worries me was the defence... Now let's win at home and shut the doomsayers up - like we did when SA hosted a faultless SWC just a few weeks ago! (WAKA-WAKA - hahahaha.) Good luck Gary and team.
 
 
+6 # Okay I am worriedgoyougoodthing 2010-07-30 17:28
You seriously think there is nothing wrong with our gameplan?

Seriously or did Peter give you his Christmas bonus to say that? Gary we haven't a clue, we don't hold on to the ball, we have the wrong players in the wrong positions.

We have a Captain who needs to retire or stop eating for a month, we have Habana more interesed in intercepts than defence and you and the head coach now blaming the officials.

Seriousl, there is more wrong thatn I thought.
 
 
+1 # The tail that wags the dogNeilster 2010-07-30 17:30
Gary, I think thats a great turn of phrase with regards to the interpretations going backwards...I just think hats of you guys keeping you're cool when IRB are flatly denying any inconsistency, yet all of can see the differing approach.
I'd thought that the NZ and Oz coaches were expecting it to be reffed the way you were, and that McCaw trying things during games and getting away with it is what started the rot! You're suggesting Henry and Co studied tapes of NH ref and reacted before the first whistle of the 1st game?
 
 
+1 # RE: The lessons of losingDallen Stanford 2010-07-30 17:49
Excellent article Gary, with plenty of facts supporting your piece. Execution and defense are definitely things the squad can improve on.

The Tri Nations is a tough competition, especially in the years that one team (like SA this year) play 3 away matches in a row. We very much look forward to hosting our rivals in the Republic soon!

All the best, and thanks for the inside news!
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingGCC1 2010-07-31 06:38
I agree that our defence has been the key for the last few seasons' success. Now it's a problem because we haven't adapted.

The All Blacks and Wallabies have taken a lot from the Reds' game and perfected it. The key aspect is the defence. Both teams use the old style low tackling where the Boks are still using the WWF style of tackling. The first guy goes low and hard and the second guy is onto the ball in a flash, where the Boks are still wrestling two on one, takingboth players out of the play. Therefore they need a third player to contest the ball. Danie Rossouw had a very good ball carrying game, but twice in the Brisbane test they slipped his tackle by ducking underneath it.

I don't think the Boks need to improve in many areas; they just need to get smarter in the tackle area. Francois Louw had a great S14, but the way the Boks are tackling now, is nullifying his influence on the game.
 
 
+2 # Lessons learned - excuses madejoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:51
Gary,
I have read your article carefully and am unbelievable shocked at how I feel you have ompletely missed the point, and that if you continue to take the same line of excuse that you are steering a rudderless ship into certain disaster at the rocks that await to sink you in the tri-nations and world cup.

The ref saga, whilst bizarre, has not effected New Zealand in either game. I wonder why? Is it perhaps that they thought about the fact that they would have an Irish ref, and figured out how to banter to and play under the whistle of a northern hemisphere ref better than us. YES.
 
 
0 # morejoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:52
This nonsense about the ref is a complete red herring, and has now put PdV, the team, and the entire SPRINGBOK rugby establishment under massive scrutiny and critisism by the IRB, SANZAR and the refereeing bodies.
Question - do you know what happens when you are under scrutiny? That means the microscope if on you, that refs will knit pick each and every mistake you make more than usual, bcause you are being closely watched and scrutinized.
 
 
0 # ref questionseabass 2010-07-31 16:25
In rugby more than any other sport people hate it when losers finger the ref and I must admit I was part of that camp until I saw the analysis.

Do yourself a favor man and try some red herring:
http://www.rugbyiq.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2100:nz-vs-sa-breakdown-video-analysis&catid=105:coaching-blog&Itemid=675

It doesnt change PDV's press plunders, but what do you do as a team, when you get shafted?
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:53
This is not a good situation for any team to be in, as it does not allow the players to have any space to play their game, and it does nothing to promote free, fluid rugby in which players of talent can have the space, time and momemtum to start playing front foot attacking rugby.

So I say to you - STOP being critical of the refs, and stop all media comments about fairness or bias.

The fact is, if we were better that NZ and Aussie, we would have won our games, despite all the odds, and hurdles put in front of us. We would have risen above it.
 
 
+1 # RE: RE: The lessons of losingRodz 2010-08-05 10:51
So tell me something: Imagine the Boks being at the top of their game and NZ playing the way they did, (WC 2011 final) and a ref sucks big time and we lose because of it. We dont lose convincingly (like 3 points) would you still say that the ref should not be looked at? I think what you dont get is that most Supporters are in agreement that we did not play to our potential, but we are also not blind to stuff ups by the ref's, the IRB and whoever else. So just like you are dishing out advice to PdV and Gary to fix their house, in the same way the refs/IRB must be wrapped over the knuckles if they mess up....
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:54
This controversy, mud slinging, and constant excuses, is a PLAGUE in SA rugby. About time we MANNED up to the fact that the players, the game plan, and the way we have handled ourselves on the field and off is simply BELOW PAR, AND NOT GOOD ENOUGH - PERIOD.
 
 
+1 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:55
Now, I would also like to add the following. This is the crucial bit.

You keep going on about kicking not being our problem etc.......utter rubbish.
Our problems are as follows, and I will try to be as blunt and to the point as possible:
1. We kick away aimlessly all our BALL IN HAND. STOP doing it. IT IS FAR BETTER TO CARRY THE BALL INTO A TACKLE SITUATION, TRY TO STAY ON YOUR FEET, and if necessary, offload, or even go to ground and recycle possession than it is to kick away good ball in hand.
 
 
+1 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:56
There are only 2 situations when kicking is a viable, and good alternative. These are 1. When a team is inside its 22 under pressure, and needs to clear the ball and the line of play outside of the 22 to relieve pressure. 2. The only other time is is acceptable to kick BALL IN HAND away, is when there is open space deep in enemy territory or an open touch line, deep in enemy territory where the opportunity exists to gain SUBSTANTIAL yards up field and keep the forward momentum moving forward whilst gaining territory.Stop the kicking game, and ask the PLAYERS to PLAY - BALL IN HAND - FRONT FOOT RUGBY - and tell the players to exercise 1 simple thing in their minds, STAY ON YOUR FEET AND KEEP YOUR LEGS DRIVING FORWARDS.
 
 
+1 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:57
I am now going to touch on a key aspect of the game that the BOKS have completely lost.
We are 5-10 yards off the pace, and late at the breakdowns, whether it be our own player going to ground, or the opposition. We are simple too slow around the park, and we simply do not have men in numbers at the breakdown anywhere near what the KIWIS and Aussies have. This shows me that the players are not moving around the field properly, either due to lack of positional coaching, lack of speed, laziness, or sheer lack of commitment.
 
 
+2 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:59
Lastly, the one areea of the game that the SPRINGBOKS have been traditionally appalling.
The Bok players seem to have always ben plagued by a virus that is called PLAYING THE MAN, instead of PLAYING THE BALL.
It showed badly in the last 3 games.
I am not just talking about bad tackles, or off the ball infringements in open play, this is a major issue, but I am also referring to the breakdown and ruck situation.
 
 
+1 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 14:59
If you watch the Kiwis, it is clear that the training and constant reinforcement by Graham Henry and his team over the past 5 or so years is starting to pay BIG dividends. What am I talking about?
I am talking about the players always doing 4 BASIC things, and doing it over and over again. THE 4 KEY reasons why every player in the Kiwi team is currently better than the Boks.
They have been drilled to:
1. PLAY THE BALL - IT IS EVERYTHING
2. RETAIN THE BALL - IT IS EVERYTHING
3. STAY ON YOUR FEET at all cost - sweep aside the opposition when you have it
2. KEEP YOUR LEGS PUMPING AND YOUR BODY MOVING FORWARD always, do not ever go to ground unless you are forced to the ground.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 15:00
BASIC RUGBY RULES = WINNING RUGBY

Gary, my advice is you and PdV get that team and squad together and you start at the beginning again, because from what I can see, the Boks team has now lost its way completely.
Even players like Habana who used to have excellent field position and was never caught of of position is now all over the field out of position, never has space to open up, is always scrambling to defend, and is afraid to man up physically, stay on his feet, keep the legs pumping, and keep the body moving forward.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingjoeruggafella 2010-07-31 15:00
I must tell you, I think the world cup is well out of our grasp, I don't give us any chance of even making the semi-finals, and the tri-nations this year looks to be a BLACKWASH- with the All Blacks and the Aussies coming away with clean sweep of victories over the Boks.
At this stage, I don't think the springboks have a shot at even 1 victory, on form it is going to be a massacre! The worst tri-nations in our history, unless we correct the aspects O have spoken about above.
Good luck then, hope you chaps can sort it out.
 
 
+2 # @joeruggafellatiger 2010-07-31 16:08
I hear you, but I have also heard all of this before - it was in 2006!
2006 26 - 45 defeat to New Zealand
2006 49 - 0 defeat to Aus in Brisbane,
2006 35 - 17 defeat to New Zealand
2006 32 - 15 defeat to Ireland
2006 26 - 36 defeat to France

Sure, they won some games too, but it was a more than average season and people wanted Jake White axed and exiled.

As I said before, relax people and judge the team and the coaches in 2011.

Personally I think it is a huge advantage to be chasing the All Blacks in 2011, rather than have everyone chase you.
 
 
0 # PdV Should Stayed With Running Rugby Game PlanSophocles 2010-07-31 15:49
Gary, thanks for your commentary, nonetheless, I am of the firm opinion that the tackle-ball area rule change has disaffected the Boks most advantageously. The kick-chase gameplan has material effect at the ball-catch tackle point if the tackler can in a continuous movement reclaim the ball from the catch receiver. The daylight requirement slows this process and permits, well positioned support defenders to negate the kick-chase as a comprehensive winning gameplan if it is not married to a superlative ball-in-hand game.

The Springboks historically have always played direct rugby, owing to the considerable size of our forwards, and the limited ball in hand skills sets of our backs. It must be said it has resulted in two world cups etc notwithstanding , the game presently has shifted back to ensuring teams have very mobile players, ball players, accuracy in execution in particular at the breakdown, exploitation of space.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingNeilster 2010-07-31 22:13
Sophocles, thats fair statement about the ball-catch tackle point re: daylight required. The point is though, that the NH refs did not enforce this or rolling away in our 3 tests so you're argument is baseless so far...
Watching Craig Joubert today was like night and day in differing interpretations .
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingNeilster 2010-07-31 22:13
Joebuggafella, you need help pal ;-)
 
 
0 # @neilsterjoeruggafella 2010-08-01 00:37
No, I fortunately do not, its the BOKS that do chap! :)
in a BIG way!
 
 
0 # The Lessons of LosingSophocles 2010-08-01 02:56
Neilster, the NH refs did enforce this rule albeit at times not in favour of the Boks. The Boks inability to implement their gameplan is down to inaccuracy and an enormous lack of intensity. Their inflexibility during game time and lack of enhanced skills repeatedly lets them down.

Gary Gold's persistence with wanting to stick to old Bok traditional rugby principles is detrimental, it will not allow Bok and South African rugby to develop to expressive ball in hand rugby.
 
 
0 # Head in the sandIntuitif 2010-08-01 11:33
On behalf on NZ & Oz rugby... Mate I hope you convince everyone in SA with your head in the sand story.

Then we can ensure you remain winless all Tri-Nations :-)

Blaming Sanzar, referees, Pocock, McCaw... Is easy to do, facing up to a distracting coach, and a weak team that were weak even when they won the worldcup... Might. Be the best way to give SA a decent team in the next few years.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-02 01:57
I thought the Boks would have an understanding by now to play the breakown rules according to the ref? surely the best our country can offer have teh ability to change game plan during teh game? Blaming teh ref is a shocker mate.

And as for the kicking game and them kicking more than us- nonsense!! They hardly kicked at all in the first test. they kicked more in the second- but only on attack, and only because tehy could RELY on us to give the ball back to them.

They MAY have kicked the same amount as us, but look at their kicking as a percentage of their plays. EG: They kicked it 6 times, and ran it 50 times. We kicked it 6 times. Period. No running. And every time we kicked it, we did not see it again for 20 minutes....

Geez your comments make me think that no lessons were learned at all.
 
 
0 # ReffingSjambok 2010-08-02 02:07
The Irish refs allowed more ball stealing to happen than in the S14 (and similar to last years reffing). So that would make sense then that the Boks kicking game plan of last year would be more effective, and mean less risks on attack. But it did not. They got their ball back ALL the time, but we did not. Look at the stats for the Aussie games where they got the ball back something like 105 times from 110 rucks. So either the refs cheating, or we had rubbish support lines. While there were some ordinary decisions, I think the latter. Maybe because of coaches encouraging "heads up rugby" instead of working out effectve plans and attacking strategy so that everybody else knows where to be?
 
 
0 # Kick Chase ApproachSophocles 2010-08-03 02:09
Sjambok - the kick chase approach is solely based on two factors accuracy in height and length; and considered follow-up chasers. The Springboks had none of either. The ref though at times questionable in part does not foot the bill for the historical calamity of the springbok saga, this goes back in history. It culminates to the boks not wanting to acknowledge the ball in hand approach being a central part of rugby, envisaging this approach as only valid in the oppositions 22 means that rugby for the boks is only played in a specific area of the pitch, and necessitates a set piece to set piece modality. Very sad when holding such talent.
 
 
0 # RE: Kick Chase ApproachSjambok 2010-08-03 07:11
I agree with you. And now especially as the law interpretations (should) allow you to get your ball back easily, it makes sense to hold onto it and make ground relatively easily - at least from your own 10 meter line.
But we cannot get our ball because we run bad support lnes and the Kiwis cheat. See

youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4

as an illustration of how they cheat.

They actually have designated interference runners running in front o ftheir tackle to prevent us getting quick ball, and to prevent us counter rucking.
 
 
0 # cleaningSjambok 2010-08-02 02:08
Two more points:
- coach your players to stay on their feet in the tackle until the last second, and then fall over the back to slow the ball down, just like Richie. Else we will never slow the AB ball down.
- coach your players to run good cleaning lines, or else we will never have quick ball from rucks against the AB's, and struggle to score against them.
 
 
0 # CleaningSophocles 2010-08-03 01:58
Sjambok, body positioning of the boks is very poor no question. However, their attendance to the breakdown point in numbers is one element but more importantly their technique at the breakdown whilst working in unison. They are wanting, and this is all about the inequity of the forwards coach, period. The body position in the tackle, strength in the tackle, and having ample support to nullify the opposing defensive counter ruck and clearing, this is crucial to ensure quick ball but everyone must work in tandem as a unit. Equally, the tackle technique is of paramount importance, being able to get the timber on the ground quickly allows you to dictate the dominance at the ground work point. This initiative is owing to the support defenders anticipation, which significantly is supported by a concerted double or triple backward tackle. The Blacks are playing total rugby, as the Gods intended the game with the oval ball.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-03 07:11
Gary check out this clip on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4
 
 
0 # NZ - SA clipadmin 2010-08-03 08:18
Hello Sjambok, FYI - this clip was shared on rugbyIQ.com on July 30th. http://www.rugbyiq.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2100

But you are right, it is a very interesting analysis.
 
 
0 # ImportantSjambok 2010-08-03 07:17
Now that you have seen how teh AB's are operating at the breakdown last week, take a look at this clip and tell me if it looks similar or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03nqnCa40uE&feature=related

Their style has moved back to the way it was when quick ball was possible through rucking with the boot.

Now how do we counter it?
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-06 04:10
I was thinking about the first video. Clearly they are bankingon teh fact that teh ref needs to focus on the actual breakdown point (ball watch), and cannot see the obstruction runners doing their thing.

So any appeal to have this reffed out of the game must rely on the linesman (which is a problem if they are not neutral). the neytral linesman must be appealed on to keep an eye out for that nonsence.

Perhaps next time an obstructive runner comes in, a Bok player can try throwing themselves about like a soccer player to get attention on that side of the field? Everyone would look if a player went flying... its disgusting that we would need to resort to this, but they would have forced us to. Their play is not within the spirit of the game I am afraid. Very poor taste.
 
 
0 # overcoming obstructionSjambok 2010-08-06 04:13
By havig your forwards running as a pack in a group, and keeping the ball moving forward, the obstruction runners dont have a way through to prevent cleaners.
Normally the obstruction runners also prevent any offloading in the tackle as well, so if your forwards are configured like this, they will be able to offload to keep the ball on the move. One continuous pick and drive, as it were.

What do you think?
 
 
0 # alignmentSjambok 2010-08-06 04:15
The forwards would need to run closely aligned, and flanking the ball carrier, but not so closely that a person receiving teh ball would need to duck behind a flanking player and get pinged for crossing.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-23 01:05
Ja this was the first game where teh actual game plans were tested without men disappearing off the field with yellow cards, or AB obstructive running (cheating)causi ng havoc with the scores. And the Bok game plan was clearly second best.

We had some gritty defending, and tackles iwth heart, but you just simply cannot do this all 80 minutes. Not with the players conditioned to this level.

The AB’s are not better conditioned than the Boks. I would say that we are at least on par with them. BUT our game plan requires that we are 15% fitter than the AB’s, and with a much tougher mindset (as being on attack is positive and increases the players heart), because we are on defence all the time. If you take for granted that we WILL not consistently be that much fitter, and that the AB’s will continue getting fitter and lifting the intensity, then you can see how kicking away possession and defending all day is simply not an option as a game plan.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-23 03:28
We will consistently lose at the highest levels because we are not using the advantages that the laws provide to the team with ball in hand. We should thank the AB’s for showing us how to win teh next world cup, and then put into place plans for us to go about playing this game better than them.

Sometimes being a good manager is knowing when to stop flogging a dead horse. This game plan has had its time. Relegate it to history please. Or at least coach the Boks to play the seocnd plan. Because as soon as we were required to actually keep ball in hand and run it at the AB’s – we looked like we had no clue. If one game plan turns out more satisfying or easy to implement, then the Boks will naturally choose to do so of their own accord. As long as they are all on the same game plan. But at least give them an option.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-23 03:36
Also keep in mind, when arguing that "the score was close" that the score should have favoured the AB's more because Carter does not usually miss 4 kicks. This game plan is RUBBISH. PLEASE stop using it.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-23 03:44
The closeness of this game should not fool you. We rarely threatened their line.

We have now lost, AT HOME, with a team that is VERY experienced and generally acknowledged as being strong one. In front of probably the BIGGEST, most vocal, most hostile crowds that you will find anywhere. After they had travelled. And despite Carter having an off day. How much more will it take to convince you that this game plan is BAD? All our men stayed on the field- and the ref only had a couple fo didgy calls - to be expected. And we STILL LOST.

Almost every time we have held onto it for extended periods and taken it through phases, we have made ground.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-23 03:45
In the second AB game, about midway through the second half, when we changed game plans and held ball, and built forward pressure and intensity, we scored two tries relatively easily.

They won because they ran obstruction, sure, but this game we knew they would not, because teh refs are looking for it. It was the perfect game to play running, ball in hand rugby. Instead we just resorted to type.

Why can we not just continue that process of holding onto the ball, guarding possession and being patient?
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-27 01:18
I can understand kicking to get out of our own half- but it makes me want to PUKE when I see Morne kicking on good attacking ball in their half!! What a HUGE waste.
You have a 50/50 chance of getting that ball back in better territory. But by holding it, and with decent suupport play, you have a 70% chance of getting it back with better territory by keeping ball in hand. Our tactics are reducing our chances statistically.

Also our kick chasers have been slow and lazy, our kicks bad and innaccurate, and the following Bok defensive line (if they do field their kick properly) has been bad, allowing them a great opportunity to counter attack from OUR kicks!! How many AB counters did we see from their fielding of our attacking kicks? Clearly they understand that by having a kick chaser runningup out of line, that means there is an overlap in the defensive line backing it up. They have worked out the chinks our armour, and are exploiting it fully.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-30 04:43
Much better this game- except for minor soft tries that were let in. Well done.

The play was still dismal, and there was not much fluency in teh backline, but at least teh mindset of kicking the ball back to them 100% of the time has changed.

Did you notice that when playing relatively badly with not much gelling of teh team (except towards the end) that the Boks could stil rack up points because they were using the laws, not fighting them?

Yes, we still had some box kicks and garryowens, but as a variance rather than a staple. Now you must just get Morne to put in a chip at the beginning of the game, and that will stifle the AB rushing up in defence. Then we can get over the advantage line every time.

To maximise use of the laws, you should get the forwards to offload in the tackle, and the backs to expect opposing players to offload in the tackle (for intercepts).
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-08-30 04:50
Also, did you notice how the Aussies, for all their famed conditioning, were at least as buggered as we were? Because they had to defend ALSO for long periods. The slowing effect of bad morale got to them quickly.

One other thing. Our bigger players should be able to hand off very easily, and to dramatic effect. Yet we never see our players doing this to the extent of the Kiwis. I think its because they have a schoolkid grounding of league and union (hand offs, fending and offloading is the classic way to line break in league).

If our players- forwards and backs- can do this naturally and if it made a habit of theirs, they will cross the advantage line every time.

If you can cross the advantage line well, you can clean easier, and get quick-ball quicker and more consistently.

There will not be much use for kicking then.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-09-05 23:43
Seriously the defensive coach needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

In fact the whole group does. The will not be RWC winners playing like this. they could not string together five good game with mentality like this!!
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-09-05 23:47
On another point: If ever there was a more clear demonstration that, in the new game, when you are not scoring points, you are having them scored against you.

The Boks scored 30-odd unanswered points in the second half, and Australia could not score against us because they could not get their hand on the pill. But as soon as we catch up, we go into defensive mode (WRONG!), take our foot off the gas, and start KICKING THE BALL TO THEM, allowing them to have a crack (while they were a man down), instead of continuing what we were doing, and putting 50 points on them. WHY!??????

What will it take to teach these players that possession is key? And that predictableness is poison? That 10 man rubbish at the end, trying to run the clock down - WHY??? We became predictable, and they knew exactly where to have their fetchers stand. Where was our faith in our ability to attack?
 
 
0 # RE: RE: The lessons of losingtevez14 2010-09-06 22:53
what are you on about mate? that is how finals are won - by shutting down the game and not giving the ball away. It was not fetcher who earned the Wallabies that penalty, it was the SA lock's poor technique and a harsh call by the ref.

If they play it wide and get turned over you'd probably also complain. Your team lost by 2 points, get over it.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-09-07 09:06
It was a comment about teh mentality. And frankly no - winding teh clock down was teh old way. The new way is keeping the scoreboard ticking - because if you are not attacking -and attacking well- then you are going to get points against you.

The new rules benefit you mainly if you cors teh advantage line. If you dont, the fetcher has almost as much chance as before of stealing the ball.
 
 
0 # RE: RE: The lessons of losingwilko 2010-09-07 14:16
I would definitely agree with you if a team is up by 8 or more points.

But 1 point up and with 3 minutes to go and everyone suitably tired with 77 minutes of rugby in their legs, I would definitely not keep attacking and throwing the ball around - why?

Any knock on, breakdown error, turn over will result in lost possession and a chance to grind out a penalty.

The Boks did the right thing, on the half way line moving towards touch. Granted an extra 10 meters further forward would have been good, but I would not fault them for that tactic.
 
 
0 # RE: The lessons of losingSjambok 2010-09-07 09:33
cors = cross
 

To post comments, please login top of the page or take 10 seconds and click here to register as a rugbyIQ.com user.

Gary Gold on twitter

Partner

under armour

Partner

under armour

Partner

under armour